Cap and Trade

[jamie2112]

Yes, but is what we are experiencing a natural cycle or an abnormal one cause by man? Perhaps if it is the latter, an unknown outcome is most likely and nothing like natural cycles of the past but most likely much worse.
I'd rather gamble with my money and not the planet, no?

Me too as my kids need this earth...........

 

[bandphan]

OK now ive puked

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6658672.ece

Gore speaking “The level of awareness and concern among populations has not crossed the threshold where political leaders feel that they must change,” he said. “The only way politicians will act is if awareness raises to a level to make them feel that it’s a necessity.”

Or the realize that there is money to be made
Boo are you scared yet

 

[bandphan]

Yes, but is what we are experiencing a natural cycle or an abnormal one cause by man? Perhaps if it is the latter, an unknown outcome is most likely and nothing like natural cycles of the past but most likely much worse.
I'd rather gamble with my money and not the planet, no?

I still have not seen any substantial proof that if we follow all of these "ideas" that we will reduce greenhouse gases to create a change. There are normaly occuring natural disasters that cause far more greenhouse gases to be expelled into the atmosphere, more than man has ever done or will

 

[griffinconst]

This all feels real gooood but we'll cut back, we'll do with less, we'll pay more for EVERYTHING, and the other counties that aren't in on it will keep on poluting more and more, making up for all that we cut. This doesn't work unless the whole world is in on it.

 

[nibhaz]

Yo tbewick!

What do you make of the fact that dirty air has a cooling effect on the Earth? Just wondering?

You know we could just send more particulate matter into the atmosphere to offset the warming of green house gases…you know volcanic eruptions have been shown to have had this type of effect when they eject a lot of tephra or pyroclastic ash into the atmosphere…

Advances in technology which scrub particulate matter and soot from industrial and automobiles exhaust are most likely helping to increasing the rate at which the earth warms…should we not attack this situation (stop the cleaning) with the same fervor that we attack green house gases?

 

[Tomorrow]

In my view it's a question of values. If you place a high value on the impacts of climate change, then inevitably you will want to minimise the risk of those impacts occuring. One the other hand, if you place a high value on the risk of negative economic consequences of mitigation, then you will not accept even modest attempts to reduce emissions.

In all honesty, I find your criticisms of 'the world's largest offenders' China and India a bit difficult to swallow. Countries like China and India have a lower standard of living than us and have historically done less to affect the climate:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldselect/ldeconaf/12/5031503.htm

To use an analogy, imagine the rich world dining out in a restaurant, i.e., consuming cheap energy, and the developing countries coming in later on to enjoy the after-dinner mints. Is it fair for the dinner bill to be split equally between developing and rich nations?

Tbewick, I'll do this for the final time. You haven't touched upon the main issue, here. I don't normally do this, but it appears to be necessary...please pardon my shouting, but I would like you (and others) to know that...I'M NOT ARGUING ABOUT THE NECESSITY OF ACTION TO STALL OR REVERSE "CLIMATE CHANGE/GLOBAL WARMING". My entire reason for starting this thread was to discuss THE SOLUTION and whether or not it was the wise choice of action given the brief, couple hour, perfunctory review by politicians with agendas. Trillions of dollars are going to be spent on what? Do you know? We could be spitting into the wind for all anyone knows regarding the potential effectiveness and wisdom of this particular bill. THAT is the answer you should be seeking relative to this discussion. Is this Cap and Trade bill the BEST USE OF OUR TRILLIONS?! Are you simply taking the position that any money spent however wisely or unwisely is better than taking some other, yet undiscussed action?! Are you suggesting that we ACT NOW regardless of consequences because...well...something must be done...even if it's wrong?

That's what I see in your statements...and mtry's and others. How about applying the critical thought you so adeptly presented when discussing the problem of weather change...to the solution?

 

[Tomorrow]

I wonder what TLS Guy's take on this issue is. Mark...if you're out there...let's hear it. Jump on in. The water out here is a little deep, but warm.

 

[highfigh]

Where we lag behind is in the distribution of wealth, environmental consideration and healthcare. These are things Obama is working to correct. It will be a painful process, but I believe worthy of the ultimate gains from it.

How should wealth be distributed? Take from the ones who got an education and have enough ambition to make something of themselves and give it to the ones who drank/drugged their way to dropping out of school, got menial jobs and still drink/drug their way through life, pounding out kid after kid because they get more assistance for each one? That's BS and I hope you know it. Instead of just taking from those who have, Obama and all of the others who think they know how to cause a complete turnaround for the greatest country in the history of mankind" (Obama) is to get those people to realize that they can do for themselves, what it takes to succeed or at least get out of the hell they're in. The problem is that it's hard to get substance abusers and people who have less than zero self esteem to believe this. They gave up long ago and this makes it very difficult to make this happen but no government has the right to just take from people in order to push their agenda of change on them. At the rate Obama and his mob are going, with negative growth, aggressive taxation on capital gains, entitlement for the poor and telling everyone what to do, I can't see how a large portion of the population will be able to retire at all, let alone the way they had planned.

As far as the environment, China and India are far behind the US in any kind of concern but doing a fine job of polluting everything around them.

Health care is like a multi-legged insect, with some legs that seem to be trying to go off in their own direction and undermine what the others are trying to do. On one hand, we want the costs of health care to be lower but on another hand, we want the best technology for diagnosis, the best trained doctors and nurses, best hospitals, fastest transport in an emergency and best post-op care. We can't have it both ways. Education, technology and facilities are expensive and losing money isn't how hospitals stay open. Look at all of the ones that are closing because of the number of people without insurance/don't pay, many of whom are here illegally.

The rest of the world hates us but they still want to live here. They can't have it both ways, either. Personally, I'm so against what Obama and Congress are doing that I'm not sure how long it will take to rectify it. People need to stop hoping someone will bail them out when they screw up. They need to become more self-sufficient in their lives, take control of their own destiny and stop taking from others. They need to realize that they may not be "discovered", be the next best athlete, probably won't be famous. What they can be is a good person, the best parent possible, the best role model around. They need to look at life in a more positive light, just like others have done for centuries. Money and possessions are not the ultimate goal. Nice to have but if someone is alone with their possessions at the end of their life, what's the point?

 

[mtrycrafts]

Me too as my kids need this earth...........

And all the generations to follow them, hopefully.

 

[mtrycrafts]

This all feels real gooood but we'll cut back, we'll do with less, we'll pay more for EVERYTHING, and the other counties that aren't in on it will keep on poluting more and more, making up for all that we cut. This doesn't work unless the whole world is in on it.

Or, we could pay less, and be like China and India to the end of the road.

 

[NYyankeeboi]

I see how people criticize China, India, and all these foreign countries that we outsource most of our jobs to. The problem is right in front of our face. Has anyone bothered to look around the houses we live in and see where everything is made? Hell, we cant even make a decent automobile anymore.

Yea, sure....they are the ones polluting the earth, shouldn't we get to the source?

 

[bandphan]

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YTc1MmVhMGYxY2UzNzAwMTJlODBjZjg2NDJjNmM2MWE=&w=MA==

a good read on the bill

 

[Tomorrow]

Or, we could pay less, and be like China and India to the end of the road.

Here's a little homework for you, mtry. How about you applying your fondness for quoting scientific, peer reviewed, creditable research and tell us what has been done to demonstrate that the Waxman-Markey bill has any real legitimacy or value in defeating global warming. Hmmm?

 

[highfigh]

This all feels real gooood but we'll cut back, we'll do with less, we'll pay more for EVERYTHING, and the other counties that aren't in on it will keep on poluting more and more, making up for all that we cut. This doesn't work unless the whole world is in on it.

How is this scenario different from what's happening now?

 

[Davemcc]

This all feels real gooood but we'll cut back, we'll do with less, we'll pay more for EVERYTHING,

Absolutely. You will cut back and do with less because gainful employment is going to become hard to find. Cap and trade has the potential to kill the manufacturing sector. Once this value added sector is destroyed, other sectors, like home construction, entertainment and services will surely follow.

But don't worry about paying more for stuff because you won't be paying for anything. You won't have the income. If you want to see the future of the American lifestyle, look to China and India for your new lifestyle, maybe even Bangladesh or Ethiopia. They don't have the good, high paying manufacturing that support the US economy but then again, you won't have those jobs soon either. Get used to it.

and the other counties that aren't in on it will keep on poluting more and more, making up for all that we cut.

The other countries will indeed raise their pollution levels because all the jobs that the US gave up will be over there. Once they have all your jobs, they will gradually live your current lifestyle of comfort and excess while you gradually adopt their current lifestyle of poverty and meager existence. Let's face it, a healthy economy and production of goods and services creates gasses and other pollution by its very nature. You can limit pollution by shutting down your industry but that's not to say that other countries will do the same. Most likely, they will make up for what you cut to increase their own standard of living at your expense.

This doesn't work unless the whole world is in on it.

You are correct. Any reductions in pollution will come from reduced output from your productive economy and that production will not end. It will simply migrate. Some might argue that technology will allow you to produce with fewer emissions. That might be true but that's also very expensive. On the balance sheet, it won't be long before every company figures out that it's easier and more profitable to move to China or India than to invent or invest in expensive technology for the sole reason of being able to stay in the US and pay expensive wages, universal health care benefits and the insane level of taxation that will be required to pay off the debt from this administrations lofty socialist ambitions.

When you hear cap and trade, think of it like this...cap emissions and trade your employment and lifestyle for the employment and lifestyle currently found in Bangladesh.

 

[tbewick]

The chart on this link is much more extensive

www.scotese.com/climate.htm
It goes back 2 Billion years, it shows what I referred to in an earlier post as 'Normal Temp Change'

During the last 2 billion years the Earth's climate has alternated between a frigid "Ice House", like today's world, and a steaming "Hot House", like the world of the dinosaurs.

It's true that the Earth's climate has shown large variations in the past without the influence of human beings. This fact, however, does not disprove the existence of human-induced climate change. Indeed, climate scientists who believe that human activities are altering the climate assess evidence from Earth's climate history (palaeoclimate studies) (1). From the IPCC report (2):

[...] Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely [>90% probability] due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations. [...] The observed widespread warming of the atmosphere and ocean, together with ice mass loss, support the conclusion that it is extremely unlikely [<5% probability] that global climate change of the past 50 years can be explained without external forcing, and very likely that it is not due to known natural causes alone.

This conclusion is based on an expert assessment of the entire peer-reviewed literature on climate change science, including palaeoclimate studies.

The graph I citied demonstrates a clear link between increased atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations and global mean temperature. The link between global mean temperature and atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations is supported by other evidence. Most importantly, we have a physical understanding of the process that leads to human-induced climate change – more carbon dioxide = more warming. This is unequivocally shown in radiative transfer calculations, where increased atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations are known - to a high degree of accuracy - to alter the Earth's energy balance. This change in energy balance (an external forcing on the climate system) is associated with a 3 degrees C increase in global mean temperature with a doubling in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations* (2). This estimate is based on climate models as well as palaeoclimate evidence. Palaeoclimate evidence is not reliant on approximate physical models of the climate system, but on actual observations of previous changes of the Earth's climate.

* 'The equilibrium climate sensitivity is a measure of the climate system response to sustained radiative forcing. It is not a projection but is defined as the global average surface warming following a doubling of carbon dioxide concentrations. It is likely [>66% probability] to be in the range 2°C to 4.5°C with a best estimate of about 3°C, and is very unlikely [<10% probability] to be less than 1.5°C. Values substantially higher than 4.5°C cannot be excluded, but agreement of models with observations is not as good for those values. Water vapour changes represent the largest feedback affecting climate sensitivity and are now better understood than in the TAR. Cloud feedbacks remain the largest source of uncertainty. {8.6, 9.6, Box 10.2}' (2)

References:

(1) Prof James Hansen's talk at UC Berkeley addresses this issue:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4ctTxZHosI
(2) IPCC Summary for Policymakers
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm

 

[bandphan]

And no matter what charts or graphs or balooney people want to put out there, there is no evidence that humans are the major contributers to climate changes and that by changing our habits as imposed in this bill will make any substantial difference. CO2 is a naturaly occuring element. What next? And FWIW the IPCC isn't a scientific group they interuprt what data is out there for their benefit

 

[jamie2112]

And no matter what charts or graphs or balooney people want to put out there, there is no evidence that humans are the major contributers to climate changes and that by changing our habits as imposed in this bill will make any substantial difference. CO2 is a naturaly occuring element. What next?

Why you ....oh wait, I agree totally........

 

[tbewick]

Yo tbewick!

What do you make of the fact that dirty air has a cooling effect on the Earth? Just wondering?

You know we could just send more particulate matter into the atmosphere to offset the warming of green house gases…you know volcanic eruptions have been shown to have had this type of effect when they eject a lot of tephra or pyroclastic ash into the atmosphere…

Advances in technology which scrub particulate matter and soot from industrial and automobiles exhaust are most likely helping to increasing the rate at which the earth warms…should we not attack this situation (stop the cleaning) with the same fervor that we attack green house gases?

As you say, dirty air – sulfate aerosols, black carbon etc. – are thought to have offset some of the warming of greenhouse gases. You can view this as a good thing, but this pollution is cause of human health problems. This is particularly true in India and China. In my opinion, geoengineering options are more liable to cause unforeseen consequences than reducing greenhouse gas emissions:

'Geo-engineering options, such as ocean fertilization to remove CO2 directly from the atmosphere, or blocking sunlight by bringing material into the upper atmosphere, remain largely speculative and unproven, and with the risk of unknown side-effects. Reliable cost estimates for these options have not been published (medium agreement, limited evidence) [11.2].'
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg3.htm

As I recall, geo-engineering mirrors in space would have a huge cost – trillions of dollars. Mitigation, however, would likely have co-benefits such as increased energy security and reduced air pollution.

 

[tbewick]

This all feels real gooood but we'll cut back, we'll do with less, we'll pay more for EVERYTHING, and the other counties that aren't in on it will keep on poluting more and more, making up for all that we cut. This doesn't work unless the whole world is in on it.

In my view, the Waxman-Markey Bill makes global action on climate change more - rather than less – likely, and for that reason I think it should be supported. Even without a global cap on emissions, other countries, such as India and China, are attempting to reduce their emissions:

'[...] with China we should recognise (and people very often do not) how ambitious China is being on the environmental front. Essentially China saw the importance, particularly under Zhu Rongii, when it started, and he was PM in the mid 1990s, and the challenges of air pollution in cities, of soil erosion, water stress and so on, and that consciousness was strong. They now have reforestation, increasing forests in China and not reducing. The headline ambitions in the Chinese "Five-Year Plan" are two really: growth rate, 9% or so, which I guess they will achieve; and to cut the energy output ratio by 20% in five years. In the five-year plan they talk about a number of harmonies: harmonies associated with income distribution; harmonies associated with the economy and the environment; harmonies associated with the balance between domestic growth and foreign growth. There are four or five harmonies of which, I think it is fair to say, environment and the economy is the leading one. They are engaging quite strongly in these issues and that context is very important. I have been working in China now for nearly 20 years, India for more than 30 years, and living in both places at various times, and I think both places in the last year or two have seen a focus on climate change and energy efficiency of a kind I have not seen in those decades previously in those two countries. The resentment on the equity front is strong in both places, and understandably. That is why we have to think through how we can be good partners for action. I think the key elements (and these were the key elements in our discussions) are making sure that the carbon trading scheme, the greenhouse gas trading scheme, would generally work strongly. We are going to need carbon financial flows far, far higher than the $½ billion or $1 billion per year we are currently seeing under the CDM [*]. It should be in the $10/$20/$30 billion in the kind of area we should be looking at if it is going to play a strong part in financing the carbon reduction; because India and China have a very strong and understood (and it is an action point for them) incentive to be more energy efficient—it saves them money and makes them more secure. It is that carbon step from energy to carbon where there has to be strong incentives.'

Prof Nicholas Stern
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmselect/cmenvaud/227/7011602.htm

* CDM = Clean Development Mechanism, one of the Kyoto Protocol's flexibility mechanisms.